Page History

3725 ICA 11-03-2008 ALAC
(March 11, 2008)

Legend
Name: First name of member of group
Name?: If we think we might know who's speaking but aren't 100% sure.
Male: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a male.
Female: Unsure of who's speaking, but know it's a female.
O Operator.
XX joined If the phone system has announced that a particular person has just joined the group it will be shown in square brackets at the left margin.

********************************************************************************************************

Attendance:
AP RALO: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Izumi Aizu, Hong Xue (liaison), Nguyen Thu Hue
AFRALO: Mohamed El Bashir
EURALO: Sebastien Bachollet, Veronica Cretu
NARALO: Alan Greenberg, Wendy Seltzer (liaison)
ICANN: Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger
LAC RALO: Carlos Aguirre, Vanda Scartezini, Ron Sherwood

Apologies:
J Morris, B Brendler, A Muehlberg

Absent:
R Guerra

Minutes taken by: ICANN staff

*******************************************************************************************************

pause 23 sec.
Cheryl: Cheryl.
Cheryl joined
pause 3.40
Matthias: Matthias.
Matthias joined
Cheryl: Hi Matthias. Cheryl here.
Matthias: Hi Cheryl. How are you doing?
Cheryl: Good. Yourself?
Matthias: Pretty good, thank you. Oh, okay.
pause 1.50
Wendy: Wendy Seltzer.
Wendy joined
Alan: Alan Greenberg.
Alan joined
Alan: Hello, all.
Wendy: Morning, Alan.
Matthias: Morning.
Cheryl: Morning. I can say that, ‘cause it is.
Alan: It’s morning here, too.
Cheryl: Mine’s earlier than yours is. laughter
Wendy: I thought mine was earlier. laughter
Alan: That’s ‘cause you believe computers.
Cheryl: 52
Wendy: And ‘cause our idiot government changed the time zone reckoning, and computers haven’t caught up.
Alan: Wendy, it was bound to happen sometime this year anyway. The computer caught up well. It was the link that wasn’t right.
Cheryl: Yeah.
Alan: When I suddenly noticed that it not only had the time wrong but also said it was January, I sort of picked up there was a clue something was wrong here.
Cheryl: That’d be a dead giveaway, wouldn’t it?
Wendy: If one wanted to think.
?? Joined
Alan: It’s not all that obvious, to be honest. Cheryl, you’ve been a rather busy bee.
Nick: Nick.
Nick joined
Nick: Hello, everyone.
Alan: Hello Nick.
Nick: I’m just going away to the operator briefly. Be right back.
?? Joined
Hong: Hong Xue.
Hong joined
Hong: Hello everybody. This is Hong.
Alan: Good morning.
Cheryl: Hello, Hong.
Alan: Good afternoon. Good evening.
Hong: Oh. Good morning.
Alan: Gee, it must be morning for everybody.
Cheryl: 11 somebody.
Matthias: Lovely evening.
Hong: Oh, good evening, inaudible. Sorry...
Izumi: So Hong, where are you?
Hong: In Hong Kong!
Izumi: Oh, okay. You said it’s morning...
Alan: Then it can’t be morning for you.
Hong: Uh... morning. Tomorrow morning, Alan. I can’t hear... I can’t hear 39 and Izumi very clear. If it’s a problem of my line, I can mute myself.
Male: You have any filter?
Hong: No, no, of course not.
Alan: I can hear Izumi fine.
Hong: Izumi, are you there?
Izumi: Yes.
Hong: Oh, I can’t hear your line. Is a lot of noises.
Izumi: Really?
Hong: Oh, now it’s good.
Izumi: Okay.
Hong: Are you using a mobile phone?
Izumi: No. I’m at home.
Hong: Oh, I see.
Cheryl: Well, once we all get here, we’ll try and put ourselves on mute, anyway. So that usually helps.
Alan: How do you put yourself on mute on this system?
Cheryl: Star 6.
Alan: Ah! Maybe that’s universal.
Cheryl: No, no. There’s at least one where.... well, star 6 usually puts you on there, but I think this one is star 6 to return you as well.
Alan: So...
Cheryl: Some are star 7 to return, so...
Alan: So is the system that we use for the GNSO talks.
Cheryl: Perhaps we should all have a practice, so we know.
Wendy: Or just use local mute.
pause 20 sec.
Hong: So, how many people do we have? Eight?
Alan: I don’t know. Star... for the record, star 6 is mute, but to get off of mute is star 7 on this one.
Cheryl: Ah, so this is one of those, yes?
Alan: Yeah. laughter It’s just like computer software. They trick you into thinking star... since star 6 works, it’ll also work to unmute you.
Cheryl: Ah, that would be far too easy, wouldn’t it?
Alan: Why have consistency when you can have changes?
Cheryl: Exactly, exactly.
Alan: Do we know how many people are here?
Hong: Eight.
Cheryl: Okay. Well, yes, but that would include Nick and Matthias, too. Nick’s just alerted me to the fact that 22 didn’t show this call was scheduled, so Matthias is having them call each person...
Wendy: God!
Cheryl: It’s not much of a problem. It’s not much of a problem, because, being an autostart, we don’t have...
Sebastien joined
Cheryl: Most people who are dialling in won’t be affected by that. It’s only those who’ve asked to be dialled out. And now there’s simply a, you know, small delay while they do that anyway, because that’s done live, and through a web interface. So it doesn’t really matter whether they have it scheduled or not.
Alan: I’m on Jabber, and no one else seems to be there, so either I’m doing something wrong, or we’re not using it.
Cheryl: Oh! Actually, if you’d like to get... 10
Alan: Oh, Wendy is there now.
Cheryl: ....running, because I have never, and I mean not on any of my lappies and not on any of my other computers up in the office, managed to get any of the Jabber clients to work with any of my systems. I tried again earlier tonight, but...
Alan: overtalking I got one to work, but I can’t tell you what I did.
Cheryl: Oh dear, oh dear.
Alan: overtalking I now see Wendy and Sebastien, but Sebastien says he’s not there.
Sebastien: Hi 44 here.
Alan: I know you’re sending messages, but you’re little logo says you’re not there.
Sebastien: Can anyone hear me?
Alan: I can hear you.
Sebastien: Ah, thank you.
Cheryl: Thank you. If anybody’s waiting to be called, they are calling out to you. Power is just being dialled back.
Wendy: And has the operator got Vanda’s message from the Skype?
Cheryl: I’ll double check. Nick should have, but I’ll double check. He probably got that.
Alan: Is there some communal Skype one should be dialling into for this?
Cheryl: Nick?
Alan: What is the name?
Cheryl: Current name for the ALAC Teleconference Coordination.
Alan: ALAC Teleconference Coordinator. With dashes or all one word?
Cheryl: No, they’re separate words. No spaces.
Alan: All right. Let’s see if that works.
Cheryl: And you’re showing on it, so you are in it.
Wendy: Or, a version of you is showing there.
Cheryl: A version of you. 19 Alan, are you there? And maybe it will respond to you.
?? Joined
Cheryl: Hello, who was that?
Alan: Someone without a name has joined.
Wendy: Welcome, anonymous user. We welcome anonymous participation in all forms. At least some of us.
Alan: Cheryl, you said there’s a Skype user called ALAC Teleconference something?
Cheryl: Coordination.
Alan: I can’t find it.
Cheryl: There’s a number of names. That’s what it happens to be at the moment.
20 of silence, only typing sounds
Hong: We’re already 10 minutes behind the schedule.
Cheryl: Actually, it’s 9 minutes behind schedule, Hong, but thank you for the update.
Izumi: I think we should consider that starting the meeting means calling out the people. It’s not starting the conversation. It usually takes 15 minutes, so we have 5 more minutes to go.
Wendy: In that case, that those of us will learn to dial in 15 minutes late.
Izumi: We could do that.
Cheryl: Or, 15 minutes earlier, for everyone to be called out to. Who was the last person in? Can they tell me how many are on the call?
Wendy: Anonymous user.
Alan: The anonymous was the last one.
Wendy: Who still hasn’t identified.
Cheryl: Anonymous user. My, that’s useful to me.
Alan: I think that was Nick... I think it was Nick before that, but he then disappeared.
Cheryl: Okay, I’m just asking Nick on Skype.
40 sec. pause
Cheryl: Well, this provider has been good up until now. 22 Hmmm. Okay, I’m going to call for a roll call, seeing as Nick can only see numbers, he doesn’t know who or what person is attached to each number. So, if you could start with North America. Who have I got there from ALAC American?
Alan: Alan’s here.
Wendy: And Wendy as liaison.
Cheryl: Thank you Wendy. Latin America.
Carlos: Carlos Aguirre.
Cheryl: Say again?
Carlos: No? Sorry?
Male: It is Carlos who speak. Carlos Aguirre.
Carlos: Yeah, yeah, Carlos Aguirre here.
Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos. I didn’t hear. Sorry. Thank you.
Alan: No, the first word disappeared, so we couldn’t hear who you were.
Cheryl: So we only have Carlos? EURALO?
Alan: I thought I heard Annette before.
Cheryl: Sebastien? Are you there?
Sebastien: Yes, I am here. Sebastien Bachollet from France.
Cheryl: Anyone else from EURALO?
Sebastien: I don’t know what happened with Veronica, because she called me one hour ago, she was mixed up with the schedule. And she was not the only one who called me about that. But then I... I will try to catch her. Maybe she is waiting for the call.
Cheryl: Well, if she is, then that’s a work in progress. AFRALO?
Izumi: Yes, it’s me. From... overtalking
Cheryl: That’s AP-RALO, but thank you Izumi. AFRALO?
Wendy: Clearly, one of the regions needs to change its name, because those are just too confusingly similar. laughter
Cheryl: Stop enjoying yourselves. I can hear you enjoying yourselves way too much.
Alan: Well, as soon as we start doing work, we’ll stop enjoying ourselves. laughter
Cheryl: Now, I know that they’re trying to call out to Hawa. But is there anyone else from AFRALO?
Now, I know I’m here, and I know Izumi’s here, and Hong is here as liaison. And that is not yet a quorum.
Alan: What is a quorum, by our definition?
Cheryl: Eight.
Alan: Eight.
Cheryl: And that’s ALACs, not liaisons.
Alan: Is there a requirement for one per region?
Cheryl: Nope.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Which I think is kind of sad, but anyway.
Hong: Can you use proxy?
Alan: The GNSO is just about to approve that.
Cheryl: You know how I feel about that? And you know you say we have to do it by the by-laws.
Alan: Hmm. Wendy Seltzer wants to exchange contact deals with me. Details.
Cheryl: Say yes, say yes. It’s really her, I’m sure.
Alan: I have a picture. It looks like her.
Wendy: It’s an imposter.
Cheryl: Just say yes.
Male: Just say yes.
Alan: Ah! Oh, I say “Okay.” Have I now exchanged contact details?
Wendy: You now show up in my Skype list.
Alan: Oooh. Do you show up in my Skype list? Yes, you do. I guess exchange is bi-directional.
Cheryl: Now they’re just ringing Vanda. And Nick is on the phone calling 10. That’s exciting for him. Hmmm. Don’t be funny, Wendy. That should have been “Laugh out Loud,” by the way. laughter Oh dear. Well, this telephone system may not work, but those of us who are connected by Skype can at least see how badly we type.
Sebastien: For those who are with Skype, you know that there is a thing which could be very interesting. You use your Skype, you put some money on, and you call the free phone number in the U.S. It doesn’t cost you anything, and you are online as if you use a phone.
?? Joined
Sebastien: But with your laptop if you use a laptop, and that’s quite convenient.
Alan: The problem, Sebastien, is when people do that there are often suddenly horrendous echoes and things like that on the conference.
Sebastien: I am like that? I don’t see... if you have echo, tell me. I will change.
Alan: No, no, I didn’t say every time, I said sometimes.
Nick: I finally made it in guys.
Alan: Right, the second time.
Nick: Sorry. Totally disaster.
Cheryl: Nick, I’m glad you’re here, but what I’d really like is two more ALAC people. Could by some magic of teleconference rigging, can we get them on at least Skype if not called out to? I’m sure Hawa is waiting for a call out.
Nick: They are doing the call outs now.
Cheryl: Okay. But you know what? Nobody’s going to be surprised to hear me say the dial outs need to be made 15 minutes before the start of the meeting, are they?
Nick?: The problem here is that they didn’t even know there was a meeting, even though we sent them the month’s calls, and all the other calls have been set up. So something has gone very wrong on their end, and that is why this has gone so pear-shaped.
Cheryl: But if we had 15 minutes...
Carlos: Yeah, yeah, I have... Carlos Aguirre.
Alan: Weren’t you here already?
Carlos: Yeah.
Nick: There’s a lot of buzz somewhere.
Carlos: Yeah, but I am connected by the system normal. Normal system. I haven’t any problem. Okay, thank you.
Cheryl: Okay.
Carlos: No, no, I haven’t any problem. I no need help. Thank you.
Cheryl: Well, at least we know they’re making the calls after. They’re calling people who are already here.
Hong: 21 minutes.
Wendy: Thanks, Hong.
Cheryl: 19 by my clock, Hong, but thank you.
Alan: 21 by mine. overtalking
Cheryl: ...someone would like to raise any points on their report now? Especially those who clearly have other places to be at this time of the night or morning. They can be noted by the non-quorate members of the ALAC here. So Hong, would you like to move straight to anything you would like to say from the agenda point of view?
Alan: This is before we adopt the agenda, right?
Cheryl: Well, I’m assuming that there’s some sort of report required or piece of information that Hong needs to raise. And I’m also assuming, as she’s doing a countdown, that she is time-pressured. And I’m offering her the opportunity to informally share that with us in case she needs to leave us.
Alan: I was just asking.
Cheryl: I’m just answering.
Hong: Thank you very much, Cheryl. Yes indeed, perhaps I’m going to leave after 20 minutes. I want to talk briefly about the IDN development. The most immediate issue will be the comments on the proposed methodology for the fast track just being drafted by the ccSO IBNC working group. There will be a conference call next Monday. That’s March the 17th. Cheryl, will you attend the conference call?
Cheryl: I’ve said yes.
Hong: Oh, that’s very good. That call will be a bit difficult for me. I will be in the middle of a dinner meeting. I will try to call in by mobile phone. I 48 the draft methodology, and I discovered a couple of interesting things. For instance, all overtalking
Vanda: Hello? Hello?
Hong: ...the public consultation stages have been removed from the draft.
Vanda: Hello?
Matthias?: Hello Vanda.
Male: Go ahead, Hong.
Vanda joined
Hong: Oh, sorry. I just want to get Vanda through here. One interesting thing I discovered is that once an application for a fast-track add-in ccTLD has been filed to ICANN, it will be reviewed or evaluated by ICANN committees. There is no public consultation at all. So this seriously concerns me.
I understand that fast-track is for non-contentious applications. That’s good. I agree to the starting point. But how to make it non-contentious? To remove all the public consultation, I’m saying that it’s not a solution to this. If you want to emphasize the internal consultation, the consultation within the ccTLD territory, they should clearly define a procedure. And as I said, evidence endorsement from the local actors.
So these are the issues I want to raise particularly, if I could successfully dial in to that conference call on next Monday. And that’s what I want to brief. Thanks, Cheryl. Back to you.
Cheryl: Thank you, Hong. Of course, the ALSs and their ability to reach out to the public in each of the consultation phases – we’ve had one, as you know, just finished, and the next one, after the methodology one, will go out to the public again, is at least one opportunity. But are you suggesting that we are wishing to extend the fast-track process by a public consultation in addition to those opportunities?
Hong: No, no, no, no. Of course I’m not against the fast-track. Nobody is more enthusiastic than me about a fast-track, a real fast-track. And any application that could possibly be fast-tracked must be... satisfy the condition that it is not contentious, which means nobody objects.
Cheryl: Yes.
Hong: So, I want to make sure that it’s really zero objections to this 38. Now, their design – perhaps we don’t have time to go into detail – but their design is something like this. You applied. I can accept it, and it will be reviewed by two small-scale committees. One on language, another on technology, and no public consultation at all. So I think that we should propose that an additional stage should be added within this process, so that people can really express their will. Users can express their will.
But, of course, I see their design. I assume Chris is thinking about, this is a ccTLD, so a public consultation should be conducted within the ccTLD territory, instead of at ICANN level. So I feel... that is his point. I don’t believe this is a bad solution or bad idea, but I assume that that sort of domestic consultation should be well-defined by a sort of procedure or template. Just make sure the people or the stakeholders could sufficiently and effectively participate in the local consultation. Especially the user community.
Cheryl: Okay. So what you’re proposing, then, is that if just in case you don’t get to dial in at 1200 UTC next Monday, that I raise that specific point? Or are you asking 18.
Hong: That would be really great. Yes. If I... just in case. That would be perfect.
Cheryl: Okay overtalking.
Alan: Veronica, please say your name.
Veronica: Hello. This is Veronica.
Nick: Connecting in now.
Alan: Congratulations.
Veronica joined
Hong: Oh, terrific. Hi Veronica.
Vanda: Hi Veronica.
Carlos: Hi Veronica.
Alan: Do we have eight, yet?
Cheryl: I’ve got seven. We need at least one.
Nick: I’m missing some, I think, from the list.
Cheryl: Alright, we’ll do a roll call. Okay, Hong, thank you for that. Is there any point anyone else would like to make before we see if we’ve got anyone else here and we can actually start the meeting quorate?
Sebastien: Yeah, it’s Sebastien. I would like to understand if I understand well, in fact. Did you say that there will be a consultation at the local level but not at the global level?
Hong: That’s right. This is the proposed methodology on... But of course, the consultation at the local level is very ambiguous. It’s just one sentence. It says, “Participation from all the local actors.” It’s just one sentence. So it can be interpreted into different meanings. So I would...
Sebastien: Because it seems to me, coming back, I don’t know, three or four years ago, when the ccNSO was created, I was a member of the Advisory Committee to the Reform Committee – doesn’t matter. And I was struggling to have all the constituency members of the ccNSO. And the answer of the cc manager was to say we needed to be just among ourselves. We can discuss with our local community, but nobody needs to have a view at the global level. Nobody could be somebody having problems at the world level for ccs. And I think we are entering the same type of discussion once again.
Hong: You are so right. Absolutely. That’s always the belief of the cc managers.
Alan: Yeah, Hong, though, the term ‘the local group’, I don’t remember what the exact words are, is relatively well-defined. Because it’s the same parties that have to agree on re-delegation of a ccTLD.
Hong: Oh, exactly, three parties – it’s the government, businesses, and civil society.
Alan: So, although it’s not spelled out in detail, it’s a process that ICANN goes through on a regular basis.
Hong: Yeah, yeah. That’s right.
Cheryl: But you don’t have a problem with that. What you’re articulating is you have a problem with the opportunity for global input. Is that correct?
Hong: That’s correct. But I’m now asking this question that whether we should raise this issue. And Sebastien kindly raised that. It has always been the belief of cc managers that they don’t need the consultation at global levels. overtalking
Oh, sorry Cheryl. So possibly we only raise one issue, that is for the consultation at local level - whether there should be a kind of procedure that is defined in this document, instead of just three parties identified.
Alan: The real question, if I understand you correctly, is are the groups that are going to be in place to review this, are they going to be able to recognize ‘non-contentious’?
Hong: Right.
Alan: Or is there a chance that they will think it’s non-contentious, but in fact, if someone else was given the opportunity, they might rightfully complain.
Hong: Right, right. That’s what I’m concerning,
Alan: It’s a point that can be raised. Whether it’s ignored or not is a different issue.
Hong: All this is a different issue.
Alan: Okay, may I suggest that we... 56
Cheryl: And the other thing is, of course, we do need to recognize that there are complaint mechanisms well and truly being discussed as well. So if a non-contentious one becomes contentious, those mechanisms will be a part of the process, as well.
Alan: I’m going to become contentious about this meeting. Can we have the roll call and see if we can start?
Cheryl: Delighted. At the moment I have, from North America, Alan. From Latin America, Carlos and Vanda. From EURALO, Sebastien and Veronica. I have no one from AFRALO. And I have myself and Izumi from APRALO. Is that correct? Have I missed someone? And we have Wendy and we have Hong.
43
Alan: I think that added up to eight, did it not.
Cheryl: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.
Alan: Oh.
Cheryl: I think I counted to 7, but never mind.
Sebastien: No, no, it’s 8, because you said 2 names per continent except for Africa. And 2 multiplied by 4, it’s maybe 8. I don’t have the list in front of me.
Cheryl: I only have Alan from North America. I have Wendy as a liaison overtalking
Sebastien: Just Alan. Okay, okay.
Cheryl: ...and I have Hong as a liaison, not as an ALAC member.
Sebastien: Okay, okay, sorry.
Cheryl: Okay, they are still trying to call Hawa. Which is... if we get any one person, we are quorate. However, at 32 minutes into a meeting, we have at least managed to do one fairly small report of a fairly important issue. Can we informally call for any other issues that anyone has a burning desire to raise that falls under their portfolios.
Alan: Well...
Cheryl: For example, Wendy. I think it would be a reasonable opportunity if you’d like to have a quick chat to us.
Wendy: Okay, the Board hasn’t met since the Delhi meeting, but will soon be meeting for its March meeting, and therefore we are more than 10 days in advance of their meeting, and in plenty of time to propose items that ALAC would like to raise for the Board’s next discussion agenda. So I will first ask if there are issues that have been bubbling up here that people want to put on the agenda. I’ve already heard from the North American region in their call yesterday that they would like to have 44 concerns endorsed by the North American region and forwarded on to the Board, asking for the Board to take emergency action as it is permitted by the by-laws to stop domain name abuses.
Cheryl: inaudible on the agenda tonight, I would guess that ALAC has something to say about that as well. Any other issues that have been raised already, Wendy?
Wendy: I haven’t seen other issues on the ALAC list asking for immediate action. Others that I had thought that ALAC might want to raise include questions of contract enforcement, registrar accreditation agreements, revisions, UDRP review - a topic that is always a few steps out on things that ICANN is supposed to get to. And general budget concerns as the budget gets larger and larger, and we know that most of the budget for ICANN activities comes out of... ultimately comes out of registrants’ pockets.
Cheryl: “Registrant Derived Funds.” I think we should all have t-shirts made with that written on it.
Wendy: Yeah. And I would also ask whether people have gotten to look at the Operating Plan, Strategic and Operating Plan, to see whether those priorities line up with the priorities of the At-Large advisory committee, because that is, as I mentioned earlier, a good place to put in strategic priorities, if they’re not already there.
Cheryl: Sure.
Wendy: So maybe overtalking, if I might ask that that be added to the next agenda for discussion.
Cheryl: Yes, I think that’s well worthwhile putting on. We’ll make that note. One thing I would like, if you don’t mind, and I’ll then add to Veronica, now that she’s managed to join us... It’s been quite a challenge to get some of us on today, Veronica, so don’t feel as if you’ve been left out. We were ten minutes and there were only five of us here, and two of them were staff. That’s a slight exaggeration, by the way.
The report on the one-day workshop held in Delhi I think has some extraordinarily useful pieces of information, and some metrics, and I know I’d like to recommend that we ask Wendy to present that or at least to formally raise that from the ALAC to the Board...
Male: This is Hawa being connected.
Hawa joined
Cheryl: Thank you.
Hawa: Good morning, everybody.
Cheryl: Did anyone actually hear who that was?
Male: Hi Hawa.
Cheryl: Hawa? Is that you?
Izumi: Hi Hawa.
Hawa: Hello Cheryl.
Izumi: Hi Hawa.
Cheryl: Hi Hawa. You are most welcome, because you now give us a quorum. So just so we tidy up on what Wendy was just talking about, Veronica, if you would like to just have a brief word on that report, and then I’d like to hear from everyone else whether or not they have anything to ask Wendy to take forward to the Board.
Veronica: Uh, yes, Cheryl. A very brief... first of all, thank you all very much for providing feedback and comments, and more importantly, for being part of the one-day workshop in Delhi, because without you and without your feedback, we wouldn’t have had any reports today. 59 the feedback, and if you managed to have a look at the report, the concluding part actually highlights the most important recommendations, or the parts of the one-day that kind of are strong and are worth considering for the future similar workshops. So everyone agreed that working in small working groups was a very good step for this initiative. Having RALOs and reports from current ALAC working groups and from secretariats from RALOs was again very important, so we were very happy that we brought up the idea of including the RALOs into this workshop.
What we would like to do, or one of the proposals of the workshop theme is to include or to invite representatives of other constituencies at ICANN to the Paris one-day workshop, so that we have a... we have the platform that allows more constituencies to learn about what ALAC does. What are the policy issues, the burning questions, the... something that... so this would be something that would allow the other constituencies to learn more about what we are doing, actually.
Overall, the report is complex enough. It provides so many details, and in case you didn’t manage to have a look at that, please do so when you have some free time. And if there are still some other issues that you would like to bring up, please do so. And I would be very happy if this report is brought to the ICANN Board by Wendy. I would be very thankful to Wendy for that.
Cheryl: Thank you Veronica. And in fact, perhaps just a synopsis piece or an executive summary of the key points could be prepared for Wendy to present, and then obviously included in that very brief summation, the URL to the full report on the Wiki will be embedded. I think that’s probably the easiest way of getting a... the document exists, it has very important, in our opinion, outcomes. We’d like the Board to be aware of them. There are opportunities for inter-constituency outreach in Paris, and if you’d like to know all about what happened, here’s the link. I think that’s pretty much the intention.
Veronica: Oh, yes. Then what I can do, by tomorrow morning my local time, I can provide you with this brief synopsis and send it to...
Cheryl: Yeah.
Veronica: Mm-hmm.
Alan: I trust ‘brief’ means one page or less.
Veronica: Yes. Absolutely.
Cheryl: Oh, less than one page. Much less than one page – a paragraph. The other thing was, I wanted to gauge the opinion of the ALAC as to whether or not they would like me to forward it to the other organization and Chairs, the other part of the constituency Chairs, just for information. Do you think that is worthwhile, or not.
Alan: You’re talking about this whole thing, or this one-page summary?
Cheryl: The one-page summary with the imbedded link, and if they want to look, it’s there.
Alan: Your call.
Cheryl: Okay, well, if there’s no objections, I think that would probably be a nice thing to do. Just a mechanism of people getting to know what’s going on. Okay. So, now. The adoption of the agenda. We are now quorate, 37 minutes into a meeting. I think we need to recognize the unusual technical problems that we’ve had. By ‘unusual’, I mean with this current provider. It was very usual in previous lifetimes, but we haven’t had this much trouble before with this new provider, and it’s disappointing, but nevertheless, we are now beyond it.
The adoption of the agenda – I’d like to put that to the meeting.
Alan: I... there is no item, unless I’ve missed it, on domain tasting, which we need to make a decision on today.
Cheryl: Okay, domain tasting. You’re correct.
Alan: Unless it’s embedded in one of the other action items, which I didn’t follow through.
Cheryl: Not really, so thank you very much for that. Any others? Okay. If that’s the case, do we need to... based basically on your e-mail, Alan, is added. And we can skip roll call. I’ll ask staff to note any apologies, if they’ve received them, or if they’ve been sent to the list.
And we’ll move straight to the adoption of the minutes of the New Delhi conference. I’m assuming that every one of you has had the opportunity to read them. Most of you were there. I’m now going to ask for any comments or alterations to any of those documents, dated 10 February, 12 February with the Board, and 14 February.
Izumi: Hello, I just made a very...
Cheryl: 25 Izumi.
Izumi: Hello.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Izumi.
Izumi: Yeah, I just made a minor change on the 11th meeting minutes, that they said IPV6V6, which should be IPV4V6.
Cheryl: Okay, you’ve made those changes?
Izumi: I made it already on the Wiki.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you.
Izumi: And I also proposed or changed ‘migration’ into ‘co-existence’. That also... may require a discussion, but I think we have general consensus.
Cheryl: Okay, if anyone else has any points to raise on that, perhaps they could raise it on the online forum. But in the absence of any of those changes as being particularly contentious – I don’t see them as being particularly contentious – I think we should accept those. Any other points, alterations or changes wishing to be raised before we have these minutes adopted? The absolute silence means yes.
Therefore we can move on to item four, review of action items in the New Delhi conference. Have we all had an opportunity... we’ve certainly had at least 32 minutes worth of time tonight, to review those action items.
Wendy: How many different sets of action items are there, and is there one page where those can be found?
Cheryl: Off the agenda, each of the action items should be listed. And what I’d like to see, is that we perhaps have action items in the future not so much embedded... well, we won’t in the future have quite so many sets of minutes...overtalking
Ron: 21
Ron joined
Cheryl: Who was that?
Ron: This is Ron.
Cheryl: Inaudible
Ron: Inaudible
Alan: Can you say your name...
Ron: This is Ron Sherwood.
Alan: You’re very garbled.
Ron: I’m sorry. This is Ron.
Alan: We got it now.
Cheryl: Thanks Ron. We’re being plagued by technical difficulties tonight, Ron, but thanks for being able to join us. Okay. We’re just reviewing the action items. 59 found those off the Wiki page.
Alan: The action item for February 12 was something that was mentioned in a conversation. It was not an action item.
Izumi: Yeah. I noticed that too.
Cheryl: Yeah, I think we need to perhaps... it’s almost too late by the time we get to this meeting to be reviewing these action items.
Alan: Well, regardless, I don’t think it’s something we plan to take action on.
Cheryl: No, no. Can that be changed? Any other comments on the action items.
Wendy: I see some that were plan to preview for the March meeting, and it looks as though that will be carried over to the April meeting.
Cheryl: Yes, well, hopefully they’ll be completed before then. What I’d like to have a better way of managing action items, so they’re not let slip between meetings. Is there any suggestions on how you’d like to see that.
Nick: Um... if I may, Cheryl?
Cheryl: Please go ahead. 17
Nick: Going forward, we’re quite happy staff-wise to remind people of the action items and especially if there’s an individual who’s taken on something, to give them a couple of reminders during the course of the month, or in advance of the due time for the overtalking
Nguyen: Nguyen Thu Hue from Vietnam.
Cheryl: I think that would overtalking
O: This is Nguyen Thu Hue from Vietnam. Thank you. Connecting in now.
Nguyen: Hello.
Cheryl: Welcome Nguyen.
Nguyen: From Vietnam.
Female: Welcome Nguyen.
Nguyen Thu Hue joined
Nguyen: Yeah, thank you.
Cheryl: Okay. Responses to Nick’s proposal, please.
Alan: I think that would be a good thing. I think we haven’t done a very good job of it in the past. I know I was assigned something round about December, which, for various reasons, wasn’t completed. And it’s completely dropped off the action item list, so...
Cheryl: Yeah, we need to have a better ability. I think that would be most helpful, Nick, now that you have staff. I think that would be extremely helpful. If anyone else 43] I can inaudible on that.
In the absence of hearing anybody saying, or pinging me saying, “I want to speak on that matter,” I think we can then move through to the next overtalking
There’s... everyone happy for us to move to item 5 now, or not?
Alan: Yup.
Cheryl: And we have Hawa at least on Skype. It’s good. Now, the current state of ALS applications... A note that 21 needs to be able to access that has loud coughing. As we know, we have outstanding applications which we’re waiting for due diligence from the region. But how are we going to move forward with that?
Alan: I’m a little bit confused by the Google documents, because we have some on there going back to 2006. Am I missing something here?
Nick: I don’t know if anyone else is having this problem, but I’m hearing a good deal of coughing, and also static. If... those of you who are not speaking, if you could use star 6 to mute yourself, and star 7 when you wish to speak, that would be very helpful to the line quality.
Alan: Cheryl, should I repeat my question?
Cheryl: I think you need to repeat your question. Thank you, Alan.
Alan: Nick, when I click on the Google docs link in our agenda, it shows 10 or 9, 9 or 10 entries there, some of which go back to 2006. Can you explain what it is that we’re supposed to be doing there?
Nick: Um, yes, I can tell you that we need to delete two references to applications 3 and 4 and put those in the archives. The two applications in blue are both suspended, because, in the one case, yield no answers was forthcoming, and in the second, ISOC Liberia asked for the application to be put in suspense until they had formally been granted chapter status by ISOC.
Alan: Okay. And what about the other ones, some of which go back to 2007?
Nick: Well, 36 and School Net, as I said, are both approved already, and just need to be moved to the archives.
Alan: Oh, okay.
Nick: The rest are in various states of due diligence and regional advice, and of course three of them are quite new, so... I should be sending you the regional advice for PCNA, for example, in the next day or two.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Nick, can I ask when is this long waited-for web interface where we don’t have to have Google docs and it is a little bit more automatically archived or marked as done, not done, suspended or pending, and they’re easier to deal with. When is that going to happen?
Nick: Um, I have two telephone calls and a couple of e-mails in to Robert Garrett, who of course is the contractor doing that work. As you know, he’s been unwell. I have in my most recent call to him of a week ago said, that, you know, obviously we’re sorry that he is unwell, but these projects do need to be finished. And the other one is, of course, the membership database, which is very nearly finished. And that we need to, I think, transition the ALS application handling who... I have in mind Steve Temple, who did the work on the imminently-to-be-released website. Obviously, somewhat difficult to transition a project if you cannot reach the person that you need to transition from. So I shall continue doing that, but that’s basically where it stands.
Cheryl: Last time we looked at this, it was in Los Angeles, and it looked – to me – like it... at least it was... it was beyond proof of concept, that it should be able to be activated, done, back in...
Mohamed: Mohamed El Bashir.
Mohamed joined
Cheryl: So we are moving forward on that, are we, because 01 how many? Six months later?
Nick: Well the... as I said, the ALS application part looks to me to be much less close to completion. Though, to be honest, it’s not a huge project in any case. The database is really very much done, as far as I believe. I just need Robert to move it to its final live location, and then do some final testing on access rights. And, you know, we have prepared a note for those who would have records in the database to tell them, you know, “Here’s what this is, here’s who would have access to your data, and here’s...” You know, basically explaining those elements so that people will be in a position to register any issues that they may have with the information. Excepting that, of course, what information we now have has previously been distributed on regional mailing lists. So it’s not actually that private - it’s not at all private, anyway.
But nevertheless, it is a new system, it is a database system. We have to care about data privacy, for obvious reasons. So really, that’s where we stand. And nobody would be happier than me, I think, or perhaps maybe except you, to have this finished. I’m just a little bit stuck without being able to talk to Robert.
Cheryl: Okay, alright then. I think we do need to continue on hammering at that, because it is something that needs to be done, particularly as a number of the regions are wanting to get new ALSs out there, and they are looking at their outreach programs. For us, I think, to have a clumsy and inefficient system that those applications are feeding into is not terribly satisfactory. Any other comments or statements wishing to be made by the ALAC meeting on the ALS applications and current status of the ALS application web interface? In the absence of anybody pinging me or having 26 perhaps star 7... do remember that if it takes a moment for you to come off mute, it’s possibly faster to just say “me” if nothing else, or “talk” or “I want” on Skype, if you’re there. I’ll make sure that you get your... that’s putting your hand up, as far as I’m concerned.
I think we had someone else join us while we were discussing that last item. Did we have a person join us then? Did someone recently join us, in the last five minutes?
Nick: I believe I heard Mohamed El Bashir joined.
Cheryl: Ah, thank you. Mohamed.
Alan: Is he here?
Cheryl: I’d like to have confirmation of that.
Mohamed: Yes, Mohamed is here.
Cheryl: Thank you.
Carlos?: Hi Mohamed.
Cheryl: Very good.
Mohamed: How are you? Thank you.
Cheryl: Excellent, okay. Moving on to new vistas, what I’d like to do is put the late item, which is only late because it didn’t get on the agenda, but needs to be dealt with tonight, of domain tasting. That very short conversation that has already begun online. 56 – inaudible, maybe French?
Star 6 for somebody who is having a background conversation. An extremely useful thing.
Sebastien: So it’s... to interrupt you, it’s Sebastien. I would like to ask one question about what I heard and I understand with the situation with Robert Garrett. I don’t know how I can put the question, but I remember there was some about when there was questions about when there was candidates to be Board Liaison about my involvement with possible advertised project, and now I heard that he is very involved with all the tools used by ALAC and ICANN, and I don’t know how he could be vast share of our organization and at the same time a provider of our organization. It’s a question, not an attack please, thank you.
Cheryl: Okay, thank you for that. Um... I think that he had made it very clear in the Los Angeles meeting that he was doing that work, and that he had certainly made sure that the NARALO was well aware of it, so I don’t think it comes as a surprise to any of us that this is contract work he has been doing.
Sebastien: I’m sorry, but I heard just one project, now I heard a second one, and I don’t know what is the total scope. I am sorry, maybe I didn’t listen everything. 36
Cheryl: Sorry. That I didn’t say them as... I saw the ALS application and the member database as the piece of work. Nick, would you like to clarify?
Nick: Sorry, had to unmute. Yes, I can clarify that the ALS application system and the membership database are tied together, and were commissioned at the same time. So they’re not really separate projects, or new.
Cheryl: Okay, I think that’s important, because there hasn’t been one that we weren’t aware of. Does that answer the...
Nick: That’s right.
Cheryl: Okay, can we move on to new business? In that case, I was proposing that the question of do we need to make an additional comment into the domain tasting, a discussion which Alan has already raised online, be discussed now. At that point, I would like to throw it to Alan. Alan?
Alan: I think I said what I think we should do in the memo I sent out earlier today. Since... again, since we started this whole process, we have been included as a constituency, although we’re technically not a GNSO constituency. I think we need to make a statement. I think the statement should be relatively short, and saying that we support the motion of... you know, we may advocate stronger action, but, as Evan just said in a note a few minutes ago, that we support the action taken.
Someone asked the question of whether this... whether our strong statement that we make will affect others. To a limited extent, the NCUC has gone back and forth on this issue, to some extent in support of ALAC. A strong statement from us might encourage them to take a positive position on this motion. Other than that, I think we’re just reinforcing what we started.
Cheryl: And Izumi did... if I may speak on your behalf, Izumi, just to mention...
Izumi: Yes.
Cheryl: Of course, you did raise on the list the proposal that Alan put a short response piece together. I think that’s a good way forward. Alan, are you willing to do that?
Alan: I am willing to do that. As I say, if this were to become a contentious major time issue, I have a problem, but, based on Evan’s comment, that will not happen. I would, however, encourage that each of the other four RALOs come up with a statement. How you get consensus, or whether you get consensus, is not the issue, but it really would be nice if we can say that this statement has been supported by the majority of RALOs, or something like that.
Cheryl: Okay, and in that case, that is an action item on every one of the representatives from every RALO here tonight - and we have representatives of every RALO here tonight – that they get some form of response... in what sort of time course, Alan? Back to you.
Alan: Um... I will have something out within the next 24 hours. We need to submit it no later than the 28th.
Cheryl: Alright.
Alan: It doesn’t need to be submitted a lot before the 28th, but we can’t go any past that. So I’ll set a time in the note, and let’s see if we can make that. We’re talking... the 28th is a little over two weeks away. Unless you feel strongly, I don’t think we need a formal vote of the ALAC on this, but I do believe that we should get a consensus - that is, the majority of members coming up with saying, “Yes, I can support this.”
Cheryl: Yes, and that RALO input, as well.
Alan: Well, to the extent that the regional representatives, both RALO and Nom. Comm., what process they go to to get the support of their RALO and/or ALSs is not our direct issue, I believe.
Cheryl: I thought you were raising the point that it would be useful if the RALO voices were clearly heard, but...
Alan: As far as I’m concerned, the ALAC people, the ALAC members from a region talk... certainly the two who were appointed by the RALO, talk on behalf of the RALO. If they are speaking out of turn, there’s an internal problem within the RALO that they need to address.
Cheryl: Fair enough. Alright then. Any other comments?
Alan: And the secretariats are on this list, they can see.
Cheryl: Okay, any other comments on this matter then? Do we have... in the absence of any other comments or people coming off mute, I think it’s... the ball’s in your court. We look forward to seeing the short response.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: Right, onto the list of new business. The first one is Guide to Domain Names.
Wendy: 30 my comments in regard to that.
Cheryl: Alright. Yes, go ahead. Go ahead, Wendy.
Wendy: I’m sorry, that was the sum of my comment – “Ugh.” laughter If you wish me to elaborate, there is a long e-mail archive of the misguided attempt to make this happen before, and unfortunately we’re being re-presented with the same document with the same failings, without even taking account of many of the suggestions that various members of the interim ALAC had made in its previous iteration. I don’t think this is a useful starting point for a guide to domain names.
Cheryl: Fair enough. Other comments? I’m not sure if static is a comment. How about...
Alan: I support what Wendy just said.
Cheryl: Yeah... how about we say what has been raised, then.
Alan: As I understand it, and this dates to before my time, this document was created on behalf of the ALAC. The members of the ALAC at the time did not think it was an adequate document, and chose not to publish it.
This current ALAC can change that decision if anyone actually reads the document. Short of that, we need to decide how we replace it.
Nick: If I may, I can say that there are so far three sets of comments by way of inline revision, so far. And one comment taking up one of the earlier suggestions from a couple of years ago that there should be graphics and it should be presentationally more attractive than plain text. And there was one... one suggestion has been received as to the kind of graphic one could add.
Wendy: Okay, my problem with this document was far more about its tone and direction, its inaccuracies in describing the process, its slant in discussion of domain name registration options, biases that crept into it, and I didn’t... I don’t think that prettying it up with graphics solves those. It was developed by a contractor, and it didn’t reflect At-Large viewpoints.
Cheryl: Can it be rewritten? Can it be salvaged?
Wendy: I think there are... to my mind, there are other documents that are more useful starting points. And at the time I pointed to some of the guides to domain name registration up at places like registrars like 53, which I still think has in multiple languages more useful guides. Including graphics, even.
Hong: Cheryl...
Cheryl: Go ahead. Yes, Hong?
Hong: Oh, yes. I want to repeat what has been raised by Siavash two years ago. He said that two-thirds of Internet users are actually using ccTLDs, so what is the pressing need to put out such a guide, that is particularly, solely, concerning the gTLDs. That should be a question.
Nick: Um, I can only repeat the previously made statements on this subject that the idea is that there would be a guide to ccTLDs once this one is finished. It’s very difficult for me to persuade people to embark on that effort when this one is still uncompleted.
Sebastien: It’s Sebastien. I understand all the points made by Wendy. It may have been useful to have these comments before, to work on the document. I read it two months ago, and I gave some feedback just to try to add, to try to change the things that were really not accurate from my point of view. But if we think that we have this document already done, or such type of document done in another place, we don’t need to spend our time and money on trying to do a new one. I was thinking that it was something that ALAC wanted, and nobody followed this work since six months. If it’s just to withdraw it, then why we don’t have this position before to... just when Nick sent it to us a new version.
I think it must be shortened. I did not try to do that. It’s too much work, and I am not a writer, and English is not my first language, as you know. But I think if we have to publish something, it must be shorter and really accurate. And I agree that we need to say somewhere that we are not saying that there is just gTLDs, but there are also ccTLDs. But this document, it focuses on this item, and we will try to come with another document if we decide so, about the ccTLD. I think it is very important. Thank you.
Alan: Forgive me, but given that there is question about whether we need a document, and whether this document comes anywhere close to what we need, I don’t think this should be a committee of the whole that’s discussing it at this point.
Cheryl: What a wonderful idea, sir! So let’s have a non-whole committee. Who would like to be involved in this online, short-order discussion that will then get back to us on this matter.
Sebastien: Nick, can you disclose the ones who sent feedback to you?
Cheryl: Nick, who’s given you feedback?
Nick: Sorry, I needed to unmute. I will look it up for you.
Alan: I think we need somebody involved who was involved in the first go-around, whether that’s Wendy, or asking John Levine to participate, or something. But I think we need some history into this process.
Cheryl: Absolutely. And... go ahead.
Sebastien: I have a vague memory, but I think John was very much involved. 16. It would be nice if we could ask him to volunteer a little bit.
Cheryl: Well, we need to... it has the ad-hoc working group formed, needs a space and place to operate. I think the people who’ve already contributed need to be invited. We certainly need to suggest that people like John and, indeed, Wendy... I think you’d be most valued on that, because re-inventing wheels is never terribly productive as far as I’m concerned, anyway. And I think we do need to make sure that if it’s going to be of any value, that it is at the very least value that is accurate, and that it also leads to the next piece of work, if such a piece of work needs to be done, on the ccTLD.
Time course on that, however, I’m curious about. What sort of deadlines will be being set for this activity?
Alan: I’m not sure I know what the activity is. I think what I was suggesting is...
Cheryl: Review or replace... review or dump.
Alan: Thank you. That’s exactly what I thought we were talking about. Not to rewrite the document, but to recommend what basic direction do we follow.
Nick: May I just...
Cheryl: Go ahead, Nick.
Nick: Cheryl, may I just remind everyone that it was actually resolved in New Delhi that comments would be taken on this draft, and a final draft prepared, with final comments to be made by 31st March. And there were no objections in New Delhi to proceeding in that way.
Wendy: Because I don’t think it was presented to any of the people who had seen the document and commented on it years ago. overtalking
Nick: And that result was then announced...
Wendy: I... only when it was sent.
Nick: That result, Wendy, was then announced on the public lists, a couple of weeks ago. So I... obviously, you’re all free to change your mind, but it’s not like this is... you know, not previously agreed to.
Cheryl: Right. We’re not saying it’s new, we’re just saying that we don’t also have... we don’t need to discuss it as a whole tonight, if there’ve been a few redline comments, and a few modifications and suggestions made, some of the historical import would be useful. But if we’re going to do something, it does need to be accurate.
Izumi: Well, if I may...
Nick: I can say that I took the comments from the past that I had that were re-forwarded in the recent past and actually incorporated those, or tried to.
Cheryl: Well, that’s good, Nick. That’s great. Not having the history, because I don’t know before, I can only work with what we’ve recently been presented with. Go ahead, Izumi.
Izumi: Yeah, well, I was sort of part of the history, although a little bit vague memory, but without really being aware of what exactly was the draft, I didn’t really say anything at New Delhi. However, having read the draft again, I think... First of all, yes, it’s better to form a small group, and I can volunteer for that for my responsibility. And I have some serious doubt about the overall direction, and whether to discuss again, you know, without just making a default assumption.
Cheryl: Well, we still have our closing date as the 31st of March, and we’ve got two weeks for the small group to do something. Is that the way forward?
Sorry, I had to sneeze.
Izumi: So, who else is likely to join this small group?
Alan: It could be very small. Laughter
Sebastien: I will.
Cheryl: Was that Sebastien?
Sebastien: As I say, I guess the people who already sent something must be part of this. And I am one of them.
Cheryl: Okay. Well I think that’s a good thing. That needs then to go out to the public list again, then, if we’re going to get... just to remind them that those comments need to come in from them as well. That’s an opportunity for some of the history to come on board.
Any other comments on that, before we move to very 59 of proposals? Wendy?
Wendy: No further comment.
Cheryl: Okay. Izumi, you’re happy with that? Izumi and Sebastien at the moment, and you can accumulate one or two other people and hopefully someone with the historical background, such as Wendy or John, as well.
Izumi: Yeah, I will try to 23 John Levine.
Cheryl: Excellent.
Sebastien: But I need to go to Tokyo to do this job. laughter
Alan: You’re free to, at your own expense.
Sebastien: It was not my request. Thank you. laughter
Wendy: Just send the ICANN jet.
Alan: You weren’t explicit enough, Sebastien.
Cheryl: Okey-dokey, right. Now, there’s a set of proposals, if I can find the PDF document that went out, that’s probably the easiest one for you to look at.
Alan: They’re all linked to in the agenda.
Cheryl: Yes, they are all linked to the agenda, but for reasons known only to my computer at the moment, it’s running so slow I’d have been up to item 5 by the time I got item 2 open. Which is rather sad.
I do apologize for the relatively short amount of notice you had on reviewing each of these proposals, but it is my intention to have less discussed at the meeting and more finalized at our meeting, and more opportunity to discuss and review between meetings. And I trust you’ll all feel that that’s a better and more productive use of our teleconference time. To that end, while it has only been a couple of days, at least it is not something we’re trying to draft now. Drafting as a committee as a whole is always fraught with danger. It’s much easier to edit something.
So, let’s move through each of these. First of all, obviously if we’ve misspelled anything, that’s not something we need to be terribly concerned about. But if we’ve got the total direction wrong, in any such proposal from the Chair or in fact from the Executive, remembering that the executive meet alternate fortnights, to the ALAC, and so the Chair, Vice-Chairs and 23 have had the opportunity to discuss some of these burning issues that will then come out as proposals.
The first one being on GNSO improvements. Now, have you all, first of all, had time to look at these documents?
Wendy: Where were they sent?
Cheryl: Sorry? Well, they’re linked off the agenda, and they were sent as a PDF.
Wendy: May I request for future discussion that items be sent in plain text in the body of an e-mail?
Cheryl: If staff would take a note of doing that as well, that would be good, okay. I’m perfectly happy with PDFs, but there are a lot of people who still like plain text. And it’s posted also on the Wiki, but I do know, Wendy, you have trouble with the Wiki being painfully slow as well, so. We’ll take that as a note.
Has everyone got it, then?
Wendy: No, but...
Cheryl: Are you able to link it off the Wiki then? The links are on the Wiki. Are you able to do that, or not, at the moment?
Wendy: Since I’m not a relevant member of the discussion, I don’t need to do that. I’m just trying, simply for accounting purposes, to find them.
Cheryl: Okay, well, that’s fine then. They’re able to be found if you do get on to the Wiki. But we will also get them sent to the list as plain text as well in future.
And any comments first of all on the proposals? Do you wish me to read them out, or are you happy for us to take discussion on them? Is that someone trying to say something?
Alan: Let’s... can we assume that everyone has access to them at this point?
Cheryl: I’d like to.
Alan: Does anyone not have access to the five proposals that Cheryl made, or the n proposals?
Cheryl: Okay, well in that case, seeing as people aren’t saying yes or no, quickly read out proposal of the Chair regarding GNSO improvements. My suggestion is that it be resolved as follows – that we convene an ad-hoc drafting group of five persons, plus 52 Chair and... that should be Chairs, plural, and Chair. That the committee produce a short statement on or before the 16th of March - yes, I know, that’s a short amount of time – drawing from comments received on the subject in the past as well as the draft statements prepared by 08 and others. That the draft statement is distributed to the ALAC and the RALO to review with the deadline not later than the 24th in order to allow final comments to be put together. And that we are aware of the inaudible of public comments inaudible on the 26th March.
Is there any discussion on that proposal?
Alan: Yes. Alan.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: I really think someday we need to get to the point that when we charge a drafting committee to draft something that we precede that with a discussion of the committee, whether it’s electronic or teleconference, to get some views. I don’t think it’s fair to ask a committee to go draft something and then come back and subject it to a critique without some input from the ALAC to begin with. Now this time we may not have the opportunity for that, but we’ve known about GNSO improvements for six, eight months now. We’ve never had a substantive discussion on it. And we’ve got to start talking about the actual issues.
Cheryl: Indeed we 30
Izumi: Well, in the early days we had some substantive conversation, especially with the positioning of the ALAC versus non-commercial. But recent days, Alan, you are right, we didn’t really have much.
Alan: I mean, the GNSO improvements are talking about some rather radical changes. One of them will include an opportunity for the At-Large to participate in the GNSO. That’s a good thing, and I assume we’re going to say, “Yes, rah rah.” There are other aspects to the report, to the recommendations, which may or may not be viewed as good things from our point of view, and I regret the fact that we haven’t had a chance to talk about it, and, as far as I can tell, perhaps even most members of the committee have not read even the executive summary of the recommendations. Now, that may not be true, but we’ve had no discussion to verify or not.
Sebastien: One of my questions of that subject is the problem of, we are going under also a revise, and we will have those in parallel, and how we can handle that. We will say something, and if the people who are working on the evaluation of ALAC will say the reverse, we will not be in a good position.
Alan: I think if they come out with something different than what we come out with, that’s life. That doesn’t alter the fact that we should say something.
Cheryl: We certainly do need to say something. We need to say something in short order, and we need to find a way forward. And I would like to see that that drafting group 20
Alan: Sorry, the last half of your sentence disappeared.
Cheryl: Yeah, in fact it was incredible noise. That the group of five persons is representative of each RALO as well. So is there anybody who is wishing to raise their hand...
Alan: I volunteer.
Cheryl: That was Alan?
Alan: Alan.
Wendy: May I add a comment for the group’s consideration?
Alan: Please, Wendy.
Wendy: Um... note that this is a subject that’s been open for a while for discussion, and that this is the sort of concluding public comment period, so it would be most helpful I think for people to focus on the specific suggestion that’s out there and tweak, either... If we say we hate it, it should all disappear, that’s likely to be noted and moved on. If we say, “A particular problem is the configuration of the registrant’s interest group, that it does not include those who are members of the public but have never registered a domain name, yet nonetheless interact with the domain name system. A separate representative of those groups should be added to the reconfigured GNSO.” That kind of comment may still be ignored, but at least it’s far more tailored to the questions that are being asked here. So if we can read the document with that kind of tuning in mind, I think it would be helpful.
Cheryl: Wendy, that’s very much what the intention is, here. That’s very much what I said in the public forum in New Delhi, that what we need to do is work on some of those tweaks, particularly in the “What happens in this box?” It’s a rare opportunity, 32
I have Alan.
Cheryl: Some of these tweaks are not tweaks. For instance, the report strongly recommends working groups. It innocently says the working groups will have “trained, competent chairs and will be constituted of a fair representation of all the various constituencies.” Actually doing that, and coming up with the processes by which you can pull that off are going to be far from trivial...
Female: Oh yeah.
Alan: And therefore there’s still a lot of work to be done, even though the recommendations are done, the implementation is nowhere near done.
Cheryl: Certainly, certainly. And these are points that need to be raised.
So, who else do we have? Alan, who else?
Izumi: Izumi, if I may. May I?
Alan: Are you volunteering, or do you want to speak?
Izumi: Yeah, just comment. Sorry.
Cheryl: Well, go ahead and comment.
Izumi: Is it possible, Alan, for example, to... for asking you to prepare sort of a set of questions to the ALAC members, who sort of...
Cheryl: Izumi?
Izumi: Yeah?
Cheryl: Izumi, the working group will deal with all of this. Are you volunteering for the working group or not?
Izumi: Sorry, not now.
Cheryl: Thank you. At the moment, I am calling for volunteers.
Izumi: Sorry.
Veronica: Hello, Veronica speaking. I want to volunteer for this.
Cheryl: Thank you, Veronica. Mohamed, did I hear you volunteer?
Mohamed: I don’t think so, but I will...
Cheryl: I’m sure I heard you volunteer, Mohamed.
Mohamed: No, but I will... I can ask other colleagues from the RALO, to see if we can have somebody from the RALO.
Alan: Cheryl, if I may make a comment. I think in parallel with setting up this committee, we actually have to request that all ALAC members read at least the executive summary prior to the 16th, when they are expected to comment on it.
Cheryl: Well, that would be very nice. Yes, yes, okay.
Alan: Well, it’s not a small... even the executive summary is not a small document. The formal, the large document is much larger. We need to give people some heads-up that they are expected to do this.
Cheryl: Exactly. Okay. Other volunteers, please.
Carlos: I want to volunteer, Cheryl. Carlos.
Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos.
Alan: Are we identifying who’s chairing and drafting this?
Cheryl: The working group itself can do that. I’ve got Alan, Veronica, Carlos. Mohamed, are you able to contribute, or will you 41 the matter, or somebody from LAC RALO able to contribute.
Mohamed: For myself, I will go through the executive summary and give my comment as well.
Cheryl: Okay.
Mohamed: And I will try to see who from the RALO inaudible also to join.
Cheryl: Excellent. And obviously, each of these volunteers will be reaching out to their RALOs, and the ALSs below them. Okay, well I’ve got... we’ve got six. I’d like one other. We’ll put this bit out. We need to move on. And I’d like at least one other if possible, but let’s move with what we’ve got.
Okay, quickly... and I do mean quickly, because we are now actually two minutes over our official time. I know we had a late start. That doesn’t mean that we should have an unduly late finish. To that end, can I move for a 10 minute extension? It takes us well under the time of our meeting after we were a quorum, but it’s taking us some 12 minutes over our hour and a half timing.
Alan: Go.
Cheryl: Okay, so that working group needs to get itself organized for, I would guess, a date and teleconference. And we shall do that online.
The proposal on the accountability framework is something the ALAC executive has discussed at great length. If you’ve all had time to read that, I will give you a quick synopsis now. And that is, my proposal is that the following statement is made – that the At-Large committee believes that it is essential that the At-Large community, and the ICANN community by extension, can expect the highest standards of behaviour and commitment from the members of the At-Large advisory committee. An essential elements of demonstrating those principals is to have a written accountability framework, which provides the community with easy to understand metrics related to performance and behaviour. That a part of such a framework must include sanctions for breaches of the framework. That the ALAC notes that the Chair has directed staff to compile those elements relating to accountability and performance of ALAC members 17 that already exist, and that is in the process of being completed.
And I am seeking resolution of the following. That the staff synthesized sentences be completed and provided to the executive committee of the ALAC no later than the 20th of March. That the executive committee discuss the synthesis at its next meeting, propose any amendments that it thinks useful at the time. That the members of the ALAC shall be invited to make comments on the draft accountability framework, the draft being made available no later than the 29th of March, with comments due to be received on the ALAC public list no later than the 31st. And that the RALOs then be invited to comment on the proposed framework within the same period. And that the executive committee of the ALAC, or ICANN staff in concert with the executive committee shall compile the comments received and present a final draft accountability framework for our next teleconference. And there are dates attached to that.
It is an important piece of self-regulatory work, it is one I recommend to you, it is one that I know Vanda is very keen on as well, and I’d like to call for any questions or comments on that before putting the proposal to the meeting.
Alan: I have two comments.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Alan.
Alan: Number one, I understand the term “accountability framework,” but it is probably not a well-understood term. I only understand it because I Googled it and tried to find out what the blank is an accountability framework. It would be nice if we... if part of this approval would include, specifically what are we talking about? That’s number one.
Number two, the dates that are recommended in the third bullet are outrageous. Specifically to say you’re going to put something out for comment on a Friday... I’m sorry, on a Saturday, and expect answers back by Monday is not acceptable.
Cheryl: Well, what dates would you like, then? That’s why drafts get to be drafts 20.
Alan: I think, to be reasonable, you’ve got to allow at least 5 days, and at least some of those should be weekdays. Some of us work 7 days a week, but not always on ICANN things.
Cheryl: Believe me, I’d be more than happy for a slightly longer time period, too. Would everyone else be happy with a 5 day period under bullet 3?
Izumi: At least. Minimum 5 days.
Cheryl: Sounds like 5 days it is, we’ll make that alteration. Any other comments?
Izumi: Yeah, I might have missed the background, so the deadline... what’s the real deadline, and why? It’s the 4th of April. Is there any pressing need to meet this deadline?
Cheryl: Yes, I like the date the 4th of April.
Izumi: Well, other than that.
Cheryl: Well, that’s a good enough reason. laughter This is internal. Now, if you have deadlines that just go on and on and on, in my experience, nothing happens.
Izumi: No, but there are other deadlines all overlapping at the end of March period, almost.
Cheryl: Yup. Life’s like that.
Izumi: Like the GNSO. So I’m afraid if there’s some of our members make very shallow observation, and then we’ll be bound by them. And are they going to include sort of minimum participation criteria things that we have also.
Cheryl: They already exist. All of that criteria already exist.
Izumi: Yeah, what’s the relation of this one and...
Cheryl: And it’s the synthesis of all of those criteria, so that everyone can review them, can make comments on them, and can be aware of them. That’s 08
Izumi: Excuse me, so it’s an extension of the minimum criteria, or an additional thing? It relates to the what exact 20
Cheryl: It’s barely an extension, Izumi. At the moment, do you know... or, more to the point, does everyone know what the minimum criterias are? I don’t think so. They’re not in an easy form to know and understand. Let’s put something together which makes that clear. That’s the purpose of the exercise.
Izumi: But you have something more in mind?
Cheryl: Not necessarily more. There may be amendments. That’s up to the community, the ALAC.
However, I’d like to put forward the resolution, if there’s no other comments.
Izumi: I’d like to propose that at least to have a well... some more terms or days, like two weeks.
Cheryl: You want bullet 3 from 5 days to 14?
Izumi: Yes.
Alan: Currently, it’s two days.
Cheryl; No, no, I’ve already... I’m happy to move to 5 days, delighted to move to 5 days. The next suggestion is that that changes to a longer length of time.
Alan: Cheryl, I think the problem is, this was dropped on us last night, the term “accountability framework” may be well-understood by some, but not everyone in the group. You’re talking... you’re saying the executive committee has already discussed this and charged staff with things. I think the rest of us have to be more involved.
Cheryl: That’s fine. That’s why I’m saying, is 14 days what you need?
Izumi: Excuse me. Excuse me. The point is that, if we are to really discuss about the revision or review of the minimum criteria thing, and for those who haven’t really exercised this, in the past we have used this to actually recommend some members of ALAC to resign from ALAC, so it is a sort of a serious business in practice. So that’s why I’m asking for some cautious approach, rather than having just two days or five days comments, which later will have a bigger effect than we can 36
Cheryl: Well, I’m not sure how members of ALAC have been asked to resign in the past, but that’s certainly not the purpose of this exercise.
Izumi: Well, so... that’s why. Because I have difficulty understanding what exactly this accountability framework means. So that’s why I ask does it also include the minimum participation criteria? For which we have identified some members that haven’t really reached the minimum criteria, and we effectively recommended them to step down. 07
Cheryl: I’m not saying... Izumi, you can’t do a member review unless you’ve got clearly understood criteria. This is to establish clearly understood criteria.
Izumi: Yeah?
Cheryl: That’s the purpose of this exercise. Establish the baseline criteria.
Veronica: Excuse me, this is Veronica speaking. May I just briefly ask a question?
Cheryl: Go ahead, Veronica.
Veronica: My question... maybe this is naive, but what do we want to change in ALAC with this accountability framework? What is the expected change as a result of having this document, or having this initiative done?
Cheryl: Well, the likelihood of every member of ALAC, particularly members who may join us as the new Nom-Comm. members, being able to tease out of our rules of procedure and other documents what the minimum participation criterias are is very, very small. It is not easily understood, it is not easily read. And it needs to be an easily read document.
Alan : Cheryl, if I understand correctly, what you’re trying to do is put together... is create an environment in which all members of ALAC are active, participate, and pull their weight.
Cheryl: No.
Alan: Is that the end product?
Cheryl: That is the end product, but it’s also, you’ve got to know what is expected.
Alan: I understand. But the end product is to try to increase the effectiveness of the ALAC and its members. Okay, from that perspective, I don’t see how we cannot support that. The only question is, what is the timing?
Cheryl: Exactly, which brings me back to my last question was, is five days enough for 57, or, under Izumi’s suggestion, do you wish to move to 14?
Alan: If 14 is not sufficient, nothing is.
Izumi: Just to be very selfish, I will have a business trip starting on the 28th of March and ending on the 3rd of April, so in this term it’s almost impossible to do much. And if this is a real serious matter, then I would like really to have one more week to review. Thank you.
Cheryl: So the proposal is 14. What does the rest of the ALAC think on that?
Alan: I support that. I think you’re... I think the deadline...
Veronica: Okay, Veronica speaking. Let’s try to see what happens... let’s just try to follow the proposal, see what happens. If it doesn’t happen, if there are no comments, no 47, then let’s follow the one week extension deadline.
Cheryl: I’m happy to run it for 14 days. It’s... my point is, getting it running.
Alan: I didn’t understand that.
Cheryl: Well, Veronica was saying, “Let’s see what happens, then we extend it to... take it as is, then extend it for a week, if we need to.”
Alan: Nah.
Veronica: Yes, exactly.
Izumi: I’m sorry, but I will have difficulty saying yes or no at the end of March, I cannot say...
Cheryl: Izumi’s saying he can’t be involved in that five day time, and he wishes to be. That is why the proposal is for 14 days.
Izumi: Yes.
Alan: My other comment is, I think we need to allow a little bit larger time after that period, before we get the final one that is accepted or not accepted. Given that we haven’t seen this at all before, there may be a bit more time.
Izumi: If you can make it one week earlier, the draft is coming, then I’m happy. Otherwise, please extend.
Cheryl: No. Let’s extend. Okay, shall we make those extensions?
Alan: Okay, assuming we accept the 14 days, what’s the date in the 4th bullet? In the 5th bullet, rather?
Cheryl: I don’t have my calendar in front of me, but we can do the math. That would be 17th or 18th of April, something like that.
Alan: And when is our next meeting?
Izumi: The 12th.
Cheryl: The 12th. It’s before 30 the 14th. So really we could move it back to before the next meeting, because that’s the...
Alan: So you’re saying we have two weeks from the 29th, and then we approve at the May meeting?
Cheryl: That’s... it would have to move to the next, that’s right, to the may meeting.
Alan: No complaints for that.
Cheryl: Okay.
Veronica: Veronica speaking. I think we can do that. I agree with the proposal.
Male: Me too.
Cheryl: Okay, so with those changes of date, we move forward with that. Excellent.
Here’s the exciting one. 11 list activities. Code of conduct enforcement. Where to start, where to begin? I’m sure you’re all aware of various calls to the list for us to sanction or otherwise limit discussions by one or more individuals on the public list. In an effort to get everybody up to speed, we have published to the list what are the rules within our rules of procedure for list conduct. What this is outlining is a little bit more fleshing out of exactly how such sanctions, should they be wished to be placed, put in place, or need to be put in place would go. What we’re trying to do here is make it a little bit clearer and still sit...
I find... Let me rewind. I find this situation extraordinarily frustrating, because there are several individuals on the public list which have gone straight to my trash for 7 of the last 10 years. I now have to listen to them. So believe me, my personal frustrations are equally high to many of those on the list. I however also have a great problem with the slippery slope of censorship, so we do need to have proper policies and procedures and rules. The fastest mechanism to limit list activity may, for example, result in more work and more wasting of our time, if it’s not conducted very carefully and very properly.
We do, however, need to avoid people leaving our list, or stop reading our list, and the sanction opportunity I think should be taken, first step would be a limit on posting, and something like no more than three posts a day is one suggestion. So we do need to discuss this, and I’m sure you all have some opinions, and I’d like to open it up for comments and questions.
Veronica, I know you’ve made a personal e-mail suggestion that people be removed.
Veronica: Yeah, this is the suggestion... this is actually the suggestion by inaudible I was thinking yesterday, after I saw someone from the list forwarding the report to some representatives of the other constituencies. I mean, well, if the person wants to undertake the role of the ALAC Chair, well, at least get the permission of the ALAC Chair to do so. And I really didn’t feel okay by seeing words like we are “undiplomatic,” “rude,” and so on and so forth. So I think that this kind of, I don’t know, these people should be simply removed from the list. Really. It’s... we cannot tolerate them any longer. I don’t know. This is my concern. I mean, a decent person would never do something like that. Sorry, maybe I’m too 52 a person right now.
Cheryl: No, no, you won’t hear any arguments from the Chair on that point, I’m sure, but we do need to remember that removal from public lists is a very serious matter, and I certainly think there’s some in-between options first that we might need to explore. Any other comments?
Alan: Yes.
Cheryl: North America, go ahead.
Alan: I’m sorry, who was that?
Cheryl: Go ahead. I was about to say North America, but I 15
Alan: I’m sorry, I thought you said ‘Erica’, and I didn’t know who she was.
Cheryl: Alan.
Alan: I have a strong aversion to putting in place complex, awkward procedures to address the behaviour of one person.
Cheryl: Tell me about it.
Alan: In a more controlled list, we would simply tell everyone not to answer him, and he’d go away because he’d get bored, because he’s not causing any reaction. It’s getting close to that right now, and he may well disappear before we do anything.
I find myself agreeing with Danny, that this is a large, cumbersome procedure which really doesn’t address the issue. I really hate to have something like this on the books to address one person. I understand your aversion to what could be viewed as blatant censorship in another environment.
Cheryl: Mm-hmm.
Alan: But in this case I’m...
Izumi: Yeah.
Alan: ...close to approving it.
Cheryl: Okay.
Izumi: Unless you have a very bit threat about a legal issue and stuff like, and this looks like you may face a legal challenge, but in the case of the current situation, I don’t think so. And I’d rather like to, as Alan said, see a simple rule, apply that.
Vanda: Yeah, I agree with that. It’s too complicated for someone to understand what’s going on, and I really appreciate the suggestion to be more forward, you know, more effective. Or we ignore them, or in the end we just accept the possibility they participate.
Cheryl: Well, he’ll simply rejoin under another name.
\Alan: No, no, no. He has a lot invested in that name.
Cheryl: Oh, I know. I do know. Okay.
Izumi: May I ask one question? It’s not the first time in the list ICANN and the constituency of ICANN is managing. I think it’s not just a question of our list, it’s a more global question. I would like to return back to the staff and to say to the General Council, do something.
Alan: Or ask what we can do.
Izumi: No, no. It could be that we finish by that. But my suggestion, sorry, is to say, “Do something. You need to do something.” We are not staff, we are not legal advisors, we are not... it is the job of ICANN and the General Council to be sure that we could still make the job we are elected for. I don’t think we need to be in this position to decide something. I think he must be withdrawn from the list, but let’s ask the General Council to do something.
Cheryl: That’s certainly not going to solve our problem in the short term, if the normal speed of General Council doing anything comes into play, but I certainly am happy to pursue that line as well. Other comments?
Alan: I think after a while... well, I don’t know, I really don’t. I just looked at the GNSO general G.A., and half the posts come from him, also.
Cheryl: That’s right. Exactly right.
Alan: We opened a public list, we may have to live with it.
Cheryl: And that is why I know it’s cumbersome, but I fear the absence of clear rules will become a problem in the near future if we don’t have them. Because we also don’t want to have a whole lot of people on our list stop reading it and stop contributing to it, because they simply can’t stand the noise.
Alan: We’ve already had people leave because of it.
Cheryl: I know, I know, and it is very distressing, very distressing.
Veronica: One comment, Veronica speaking.
Cheryl: Yes, Veronica.
Veronica: I do share all the comments that you have all just shared until now, but my concern is for us to try to define the impact that these messages, this communication from this certain person has on us. What change does this person bring? What changes – what is the positive, or what is the negative effect on us? On our work, on our daily activities? And if we try to measure, and we... why do we need to cope with someone’s of... I don’t know, pleasure of sending hundreds pounds of e-mails a day? I don’t manage, for example, to read all of them. My inbox is full of those messages, I have to cope with that. And let’s just try to see the impact. Is it affecting us in a positive way or in a less positive way? And, I don’t know, we should do something with that.
Alan: I mean, once anyone realizes what’s going on, they can set up a filter and make him disappear. The point is, many people don’t get to that stage.
Cheryl: No, and in fact, I mean... because anything with one or two e-mail addresses used to go straight to my... didn’t even come through from my mail server. It was only when I joined G.A. lists and things like that that in fact I had to change that, because what would happen is I’d get the responses from other people, and then not have the background, so you’d get it anyway. I really think that one of the first steps we need to make is something affirmative, and that is a limit on number of postings a day. 57
Sebastien: I support this...
Cheryl: ...be less valuable than simply being asked overtalking
Wendy: I don’t support that, because I... Veronica spoke in background, inaudible
Cheryl: Say it again, there were two people talking then.
Veronica: I think it’s a good proposal to start from limiting the number of messages posted a day. I think that that might be a good beginning.
Cheryl: One of those discussions that the executive has had is that that could be 3 or 5. I don’t particularly care what number it is, as long as it’s a reasonable number. My personal preference happens to be for the number 3. 32
Alan: Someone still there.
Wendy: Somebody object?
Sebastien: 3 is a good proposal.
Wendy: I disagree. I don’t think that limiting the number of posts a day is useful, because it will invariably be over-broad and under-inclusive. It will fail to stop the messages from our friend. 3 a day is still annoying. beeping stops And it will stop useful conversations that members of this list very occasionally but occasionally do have.
Alan: I certainly would...
Cheryl: 13 ...and exceptions on, you know, there can always be exceptions made. Remember that any of these moderations are an impost on somebody’s time, right?
Alan: Alright, you’re... Cheryl, question. Is this going to be implemented automatically or by someone making the decision?
Cheryl: That’s why it’s taken me so long to come up with this. Nick, would you care to say how it has to happen?
Alan: Nick sent a message a while ago saying he was going off somewhere. I’m not sure he’s on the call.
Nick: Sorry.
Alan: Oh, you’re here? Okay.
Nick: I did get back on. Um, is the question what is the mechanics of moderating a person or persons?
Alan: Using the algorithm Cheryl is proposing. That is, a count.
Nick: 3 a day?
Alan: Yeah.
Nick: It would be a manual process. We would turn on moderation for that person. So all messages would be moderated, and we would then allow the first 3 of the day to be sent through.
Alan: So it would not apply, for instance, to me unless the Chair decided that I was an annoying person?
Nick: That’s right. We would have to turn moderation on for an account in the first instance. 41
Cheryl: Sorry, who was that? Somebody trying to say something?
Alan: Who knows?
Female: Yeah.
Male: Sorry.
Veronica: Um... this is Veronica speaking.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Veronica.
Veronica: One more suggestion in regards to this online communication. If maybe we can put it somewhere down so that people understand it once and for all. If you have a specific reply to a certain person, do reply to that certain person, and don’t forward it to the whole world.
Cheryl: Yes.
Veronica: Did you get my message? Sometimes there are... do you hear me?
Alan and Cheryl: Yes.
Veronica: Sometimes we receive e-mails from certain people in which they reply to a certain person. And this is a very short answer, it’s not relevant for the rest of the community. So in case there are certain messages that a person is addressing to another certain person, let him or her reply to him or her only, but not sending, again, thousands of e-mails as a reply to only one person. So if it’s not something for the community as a community interest, then it should be also made clear that...
Cheryl: Indeed.
Veronica: It’s important to keep in mind.
Cheryl: Could not agree with you more, Veronica. Was there someone else who wanted to say something just then as well?
Wendy: I’m sorry, I have to leave, so see you online.
Cheryl: Wendy, just before you do go, and believe me, seeing as it is... gee, it’s only 2:30 a.m. for me. I’m happy to wrap this up as soon as possible. Do you think with the mechanics of the moderation just applied to the individuals in question, will work at least as a short-term attempt.
Wendy: I think this is a big mass to stick into ALAC procedures in response to an isolated problem. So I would have responded with something more pin-point.
Alan: Well, we’ve already moderated, regardless of what procedures we have in place, we have already put some people on moderation on occasion.
Wendy: Right. So why not just do it?
Cheryl: All right then.
Carlos: Sorry, Carlos speaking.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Carlos.
Carlos: Moderation... moderation list. Is not a kind of censorship...
Alan: Yes.
Carlos: I think... I think every one of us have a right to express her/his opinion in everywhere, especially in the worldwide list. I think this is a complicated decision to take. Free speech is the one principle of... or very, very strong principle. So ALAC... I don’t know if it needs to restrict the speech in the list. Is my opinion. Please, understand well.
Cheryl: Thank you, Carlos, and that it a very important point. Do you feel, though, that limit of post numerically is actually interfering with free speech, when you can have, even if you are a moderated individual, you can have three posts, and as long as they are three concise, important pieces of information that you desperately want to get out, that’s still allowing you your right of free speech.
Carlos: Yeah...
Cheryl: And I think that’s where I am hoping we will end, and very shortly, in the resolution of at least moderation to three per day on people who have been deemed to be in violation of our code of conduct under rule 22, which already exists. If that’s the case, then I believe that we have at least one individual who needs to be moderated now.
Carlos: In this case, I agree.
Cheryl: So I put that to the meeting, the moderation of three per day, which of course can be 33 to three per week if we need to. And it does fit under these rather wordy and convoluted and complex sets of proposals. But the reason that they’re that wordy and convoluted is that it is a very serious matter when we are perhaps interfering with what people believe is their free and unfettered right to say what they want, where they want and how they want. So first of all, let’s take this in two sections – the proposal to specifically moderate and sanction currently one e-mail address is on the table. Is there anyone who wishes to vote against that motion? Is there anyone who wishes to abstain from that motion?
Izumi: I will abstain.
Cheryl: Izumi abstain. Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to abstain, and I certainly respect the right to abstain on something as important as this. I believe we should also note that at this point in the meeting, our Board liaison Wendy has left.
Alan: Do we still have quorum, by the way?
Cheryl: Yes, we do. Wendy doesn’t constitute part of 02
Alan: No, no, I wasn’t commenting on Wendy.
Cheryl: Oh, right. Well, I sincerely hope we do. I haven’t heard too many people drop off. I’ve only had a potential of one, and we had more than we needed by the time we were 42 minutes into the conversation.
Nick: I believe we’ve only lost one, but we had, I think, two in excess of quorum before that.
Cheryl: That’s correct, Nick. Yes, that’s by my numbers as well. Okay, so... If we have one abstention, we have no votes against, it is your last chance, otherwise it will be recorded that the rest of the ALAC at this meeting are voting for the motion. I certainly am voting for the motion.
Okay, let’s take that then into the second part, and that is the, as I say, rather lengthy proposal on the code of conduct for enforcement. We already have a very long document called the Rules of Procedure. This is really just a clarification and expansion of one of those rules. I have no problem if you choose to not endorse this tonight, but it is my firm belief that if it is not endorsed, some such clarification will need to be looked at in the future, and this proposal will be re-presented. Any discussion on that?
Alan: I suggest we take the latter path. That is, consider it at some time in the future, should it be necessary.
Cheryl: Okay. We will park that proposal per se, but at least you will have all had plenty of time for when we need to re-present it, as I feel we may need to do.
Alan: I do note that putting those procedures in place are another reason not to apply for the Chair position. laughter
Cheryl: And can I just share with you how tempting it was, for those of you who know me now a little better than you did a little while ago, can you just imagine how tempting it was to respond to the list, but I 19, you see. To respond to the list that says, “In whose opinion would those things be made?” And I was going to inaudible because she’s laughing. Who’s going to decide? Me.
Anyway, enough of that. I really would like to just power through... I know it is late, but we did have technical difficulties... if you are able to stay, a very important proposal for planning for Paris. We must get this going now. I have made a listing here which is an extension of what we discussed in our executive meeting, that the ad-hoc planning committee which we put together for every face-to-face meeting, for Paris be set up tonight. And I would like to invite any comments or discussions on the following ad-hoc committee population. That being, the Chair... it does say “the Vice-Chair.” It should be plural. And I need to place hold that word “Vice-Chair” for just a few moments. At the moment, 30.
Sebastien, as host of the Paris meeting, I implore you to be part of that ad-hoc working committee, and I’d be very surprised if you would say no. I also think that the Chair of EURALO needs to be involved, and then we need to have representatives from other RALOs. And obviously, have staff. There’s also some time courses attached to that. You might notice I’m rather keen on having deadlines and time courses – whether or not you need them, at least you’ve got them, and you can always extend if you need to. But if they’re unrealistic in the draft, we need to discuss that now. So I’d like to put that proposal open for discussion. And obviously, we would like to have a representative from APRALO, AFRALO and LAC RALO identified. Any comments or questions?
Alan: But not NARALO?
Cheryl: I asked for NARALO. Nick, consider yourself put against the wall and shot. What was my one comment back?
Nick: No, I went and edited it.
Alan: NARALO is now in the list, but you didn’t say it.
Cheryl: Oh! Thank you.
Nick: Yeah, I edited it, because Cheryl said, “Oh, you left NARALO out.” So I just changed it in the Wiki.
Alan: But not in the copy that Cheryl’s looking at.
Nick: No.
Cheryl: Not in the copy I’m looking. Sorry 52.
Nick: Sorry, darling. See, I do listen to you. I do listen to you, you know.
Cheryl: I was going to say, if you stop, then we’ve got a problem. Okay, we’ve got all the RALOs represented. That was my intention, believe me. Okay. Any other questions?
Alan: Um... I would suggest that, assuming a mailing list is going to be put together for this group... Is that a given?
Cheryl: Correct.
Alan: That others be allowed to audit it. To be allowed to be on the list, even if they’re not formally on the committee.
Cheryl: I have no problem with that. More is fine, but we have to have a minimum.
Alan: You may well find that any given RALO chooses not to be a formal member but will read it and comment on occasion. I don’t have any problem with that.
Cheryl: Okay, I really want to get the RALOs, the representatives, that connection with the RALOs, working better, so you’ll see me pressing for proper global representation on these working groups.
Alan: That’s fine. I assume when you say ‘RALO’, it does not necessarily mean an ALAC member.
Cheryl: No, it does not necessarily mean an ALAC member. Okay, so let’s assume that in principle, as this is written, I have seen no comments or need change any of the dates or the general 20, I would like to put that to the meeting. First of all, I will ask for anyone who wishes to vote against this proposal. Now I will ask for anyone who wishes to abstain from this proposal.
With that said, we now need to make this happen, and to make this happen we obviously need to contact a few people, create the list, and get the administrivia working, and therefore that goes back to staff to make that all happen. I would certainly look forward to having the LAC RALO, AFRALO, North American RALO and APRALO representatives identify themselves as soon as possible. If you wish to identify yourself from this meeting tonight, do so now.
Alan: I will not be the representative of the NARALO, but I would like to be on the mailing list, and I will contact NARALO and ask for a rep.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Alan. Greatly appreciate it.
Izumi: May I suggest that we ask also Wendy to be... not part of the group but, like Alan, to follow this? Because I think the Board will at one time discuss the overall organization of the meeting. It’s 58 the staff, but it will come to the Board one day, and I think it’s important to follow what could be discuss on that, and that she can give us back the discussion there as a Board about the organization of the meeting.
Cheryl: It means she has the background. That’s an excellent plan. Certainly, I think we should invite Wendy. That has my support. Any other suggestions?
Alan: Is the March 31st date too aggressive? I understand your need to set dates.
Cheryl: Would you prefer me to do it on the 1st of April?
Alan: laughter That’s exactly what I had in mind, Cheryl. No, no, it’s a serious question. It sounds a little bit aggressive to me, but I may be wrong.
Cheryl: I can be a little bit aggressive, Alan, you know that. If you’d like to...
Alan: No comment.
Cheryl: Look, I think, yes, it’s aggressive, but we are looking at draft programs of related meetings. That’s not an onerous task, I don’t think. I’d be happy to move it to April Fool’s Day, but beyond that, I don’t think we need to move it too much further.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: All right, then. Well, we shall now make the magic happen, and I am very pleased with that. Now, I did ask you to make a place holder, but I do just want to come back to the issue of Vice-Chair in a moment.
But let’s deal with our very last proposal, I do apologize – the ALAC budget committee and its work. I’m not... because we don’t have representatives on the budget committee that are from each of the RALOs... it’s very important from my perspective and from the executive’s perspective, to have a proper regional representation, and this is the mechanism, I think, that we can try and meet that need. So there’s a slight change at the moment. The current budget committee is the Chair, myself proposed, when I was just an APRALO rep, I said I’ll put my hand up. And Annette, who also seems to have got into it the same way, by saying, “I’m interested” and putting her hand up. The change, when I became Chair, was that the Deputy Chair, Vanda, also happened to have an interest in budgets, and so we had the Chair, and one of the Deputy Chairs and Annette. What we would like to do is ensure that it is a proper and broadly representative group. And this will mean one representative from each RALO, the Chair of the ALAC, and the Vice-Chairs of the ALAC would be the new structure. Is there any comment or overtalking
Alan: Isn’t that too large?
Cheryl: Anything under seven is just manageable. Seven or under is manageable, remembering that the mechanisms for the budget committee are not all that onerous. But one of the things, for example, is putting in the input to the current policy... travel policy, etc. There is work that needs to be done...
Alan: Cheryl.
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Alan: Cheryl, you just said 7 or under is manageable, and you’re proposing 8.
Cheryl: Oh, well that’s because, at the moment, I only had 7.
47
Cheryl: Go ahead.
Vanda: Yeah, that’s Vanda. We are in the shot talking about the budget committee. And when Izumi and I, we’re thinking about that’s not a good idea to change the budget committee in the middle of the process. We just discussed the process. We could do that in Paris, after we approve this budget of this year, so that the new people can join, understand the process, and participate well in the next process. So that was the opinion we were chatting in the Skype. So that’s what I’m talking about.
Cheryl: Right, well, it just means that it’s an executive and one ALAC representative from Europe involved. I find that frighteningly small, seeing as we had some very important work to review.
Alan: Cheryl, one of the problems in my mind is not so much that there needs to be representatives, but there needs to be more information. I rarely see documents saying this is budget we’re proposing, or these are the issues being discussed. I think there has to be more communication with the ALAC. I’m less worried about the size of the committee itself than I am with interactions between the committee and the rest of the ALAC. And perhaps also the RALOs, but certainly the ALAC.
Cheryl: Well, it’s... remembering the budget committee only has a single piece of work at the moment, and that is to respond to the current draft proposal. This is current work. It’s not work that hasn’t been done, or that hasn’t been... the only outcome of the budget committee since I’ve been involved was a proposal that was rejected by ICANN, counter-proposal put forward. All of that on the Wiki, and was certainly copied to the list. We have the new paradigm, however, which means we have the input opportunities. The RALOs have all been requested to make their regional inputs and budgets and bring those forward. But we also need to respond to the operational plan and the new budget paradigm, and it’s that piece of work that I’m interested in having actual real people doing real work, and, to be honest, I think it should be more than Vanda and I. However, Vanda, you obviously think it should just be you and I, and Annette. That’s okay.
Vanda: Yeah. That’s... I’m a little afraid about the size. You know, to put many people doing something, the... in the end of the process, nothing is done. So...
Cheryl: Well, I 12
Alan: Hold on, there’s several people talking.
Cheryl: I only hear one.
Alan: I hear... go ahead. I heard Vanda and Izumi, I think.
Vanda: Oh, okay. Go ahead, Izumi.
Izumi: I was not. I was muting, so no way.
Alan: Oh, okay. So it was someone else then, I don’t know who.
Cheryl: Go ahead, Vanda. Sorry.
Vanda: Okay. No, I am afraid about the size. I am working right now with someone based on the ICANN budget, and working with any issues to exchange with the others. I don’t like large groups, because, especially with so different people, it’s hard to get together. It’s much more efficient to have something done, and then circulate among everybody to get some feedback, something. But the real work should be done for a small group of people, because there is a... it’s almost impossible to exchange a lot of issues with a lot of people. It never is finished. That’s my... that’s why 47
Cheryl: I’m interested in getting it started, let alone getting it finished. So who’s going to do this work? Is it going to be the executive plus Annette? Or is it going to be a group of 5 or a group of 7, or what configuration is going to work? And that configuration of the current input into the current planning for the ICANN budget, including all the things that are important to us, our travel support and other matters.
Vanda: For me, more than 4 people or 5 people, it’s... for me, 4 people would be the best, the best group to work with.
Cheryl: Well, I’d like to say 5, because if we have 5... overtalking
Vanda: Yeah, 5 is better, because you have some...
Cheryl: We can ensure that we have someone from each RALO, because your executive are also spread across the RALOs. Which goes back to what’s been on the websites since we populated our committees, and that is that we needed some more people. If we look at Vanda representing LAC RALO, me representing APRALO, Annette representing EURALO, then we need someone from North America and AFRALO to populate the existing budget committee.
Alan: So we’re adding... we’re talking about adding two people at this point?
Cheryl: If you’d like to move back to the smaller, and not change but only work with the existing mechanisms we have, then we need someone from NARALO and someone from AFRALO. And then follow these time course.
Alan: When you say ‘RALO’, you mean ‘region’, I assume.
Cheryl: That’s exactly what I mean. The region at large...
Alan: Because we’re not trying to exclude Nom-Comm. people, right? laughter
Cheryl: Absolutely not. Alan, as the only North American person on the call tonight, and someone who I know has a good experience in terms of budget and indeed interest in budgetary matters, can we appeal to you to join this group?
Alan: Yes.
Nick: You’re so naughty, Alan.
Alan: No, I’m not. laughter
Cheryl: Well, who can I have from Africa?
Alan: Cheryl, I join with the understanding that I already have a very full plate, and I will certainly read and comment when appropriate.
Cheryl: As we all do.
Alan: I may not be volunteering do a lot of drafting.
Cheryl: That’s all right. We all have very full plates.
Alan: Okay.
Cheryl: We are all volunteers. Okay, I need to find someone from Africa. If they can’t put their hands up tonight, then it needs to happen in the next 48 to 72 hours, okay.
Female: Okay.
Cheryl: And then we will complete the simply changed they...
Nick: I put a note on the list.
Cheryl: Thank you very much, Nick. Now, it brings us perilously close to the end of the meeting, and I can tell you at nearly 3:00 a.m., I’ll be happy to finish it.
Alan: Except we ignored the Danny statement.
Cheryl: Sorry? No, no, no we haven’t.
Alan: We haven’t? Okay. We skipped it.
Cheryl: We have the matter that we need to come back to, and that is the endorsement or otherwise, and my suggestion is endorsement, of what happened at the NARALO meeting, and what we had advanced warning of from Danny. And seeing as you’re it again, Alan, if you’d like to just put the proposal, and then I will be more than happy to put the endorsement.
Alan: The meeting of the NARALO yesterday unanimously supported forwarding this statement to the Board on behalf of the NARALO. The question is, do we want at the same time to say it is on behalf of the ALAC, or do we want individual RALOs to support it independently? Do we feel comfortable enough that this is a statement representing us, that we want to put our label on it, or not? ‘Our’ being ALAC.
Cheryl: I’d certainly like to see an ALAC label on it, but let’s ask for comments. Any other comments from anyone?
Alan: We need at least...
Cheryl: Does anybody object to it being endorsed?
Sebastien: It is difficult to say yes or no. It needs time to think, to read it, to...
Alan: How much time do we need?
Cheryl: Yeah. How much time do you need, Sebastien?
Sebastien: I don’t know.
Cheryl: Okay. When did it go out to the list? Alan, can you remember? It was about two weeks ago.
Alan: When did it go out to the... oh, it must have been two weeks, at this point.
Cheryl: It’s been two weeks, at least.
Sebastien: I am sorry, I am sorry, but the list today, it’s not workable to me. I can’t work with the list. It’s impossible. 33
Cheryl: Can I then ask that it be re-submitted tonight, your night, Nick, to the ALAC internal list, with a view to it being an ALAC-endorsed document, with an appropriate closing time for that being a yea or nay, giving people enough time. Sebastien, I will now ask you, once that document is posted to the internal list, how much time do you think is reasonable for everyone who may be in a similar situation to yourself, not having had time to peruse it properly?
Sebastian: How long is the document?
Nick: It depends on if you read the references or not. It’s about a page without the references.
Alan: Yeah.
Cheryl: Yes, one and a half with refs.
Alan: It fits on one screen.
Sebastien: I guess... is it, the beginning of next week okay?
Alan: I would think so.
Cheryl: Okay, then, sounds like a plan. Let’s have it put to the internal list, with a view to endorsement as an ALAC endorsement, with a closing date for comment by the ALAC, by 1200 UTC, 17th of March date and time. And that we also take the opportunity when it goes to the ALAC list to encourage any RALO secretariat who may wish to also use their individual group endorsement, to do the same.
Alan: Can you give me that time again?
Cheryl: 1200 UTC, March 17th.
Alan: I’ll pass that on to the NARALO, and they can decide to hold onto it until then, or forward and we can endorse after the fact.
Cheryl: I think... I mean, I would be surprised if it was not an endorsed document. I’d be astonished if it was not an endorsed document. But we must allow enough time for everyone to go through it properly.
Alan: Understood. I’ll pass that on.
Cheryl: Thank you very much. And I guess it’s another reason why the important sanctioning discussion that we’ve had tonight is so important, because the list management and list fatigue become very real.
In absolute closing, unless someone has any other business... perhaps I could call quickly for any other business now. You’d be brave if you put it forward. I need to make you aware of something that the executive was made aware of in... just after our last meeting. And that is, it is unfortunately the case that the co-Vice Chair, Robert, due to ill health, wishes to resign from his position as Vice Chair. He has been unable to attend virtually any of our meetings and activities. It is something that is worrying him greatly, and obviously he does not wish to be more stressed by what he feels he should be doing, and is unable to do. I think we need to note and accept that resignation, and obviously put into place the appropriate calls for replacement and nomination processes. I’d also like to suggest that our thanks go, and are recorded on the minutes, to anyone who is brave enough to put up their hand for an executive position, particularly since, unlike some Vice-Chair positions, it’s not a ‘In Name Only’ role. It’s not just when I get hit by a bus that you get to take over. It is a demanding and active and very much part of our leadership team role that he was willing to undertake, but unfortunately, due to ill health, is unable to continue. I was hoping that he may have made that information available to NARALO, and I would ask Alan that if that has not become public yet, that perhaps we treat this information with a little bit of privacy...
Alan: Except this call will be posted in a matter of hours.
Cheryl: Which means, I think, that somebody should let NARALO know that the ALAC executive has received and is, as of tonight, accepting the resignation of our Vice-Chair.
Alan: You are a member of that list, are you not?
Cheryl: The N.A. list?
Alan: Yeah.
Cheryl: I don’t think I do. I don’t post to it.
Alan: I would suggest posting is appropriate, in this case.
Cheryl: Yeah, I really would hope... I was hoping it would come out before that. Okay, well I’m not sure I’m going to post at 3:00 in the morning, that’s all. Perhaps it might be something, Nick, because it is an executive decision that each of the lists are made aware of, as a result of my information to the ALAC meeting tonight.
Nick: I’m happy to make that post for you, if you like.
Alan: Yeah.
Cheryl: I think that is appropriate, because it is an executive position. It’s quite common for people to rely on their executive, and if there’s been a change, or indeed, as there is now going to be a call for a new nomination process, the RALOs do need to know about that, as do the ALSs.
Alan: And it should go to the internal list, also.
Cheryl: Absolutely, absolutely.
Alan: Yeah, I think all we need is a short notice saying due to personal reasons he’s had to resign. We’ll be opening calls for the position.
Cheryl: And I think we need to add our thanks, for being brave enough to put your hand up for this.
Okay. All right, then, can I simply say that even though we had horrendous technical difficulties at the beginning, I do thank you all for putting up with it. But we might need to change our processes in future so that the dial-outs are being booked 15 minutes before the start time of the meeting. If we can make that an administrative change, Nick, I think that would be worthwhile pursuing.
Nick: Happy to do that.
Cheryl: And also that we encourage our dial-in participants to dial in in the 5 or 10 minutes prior to the meeting starting, as well. Okay?
Nick: We will happily remind people of these things.
Cheryl: So then, when the wheels fall off, we’ve got less of our meeting time taken up solving it. I also trust, Nick, that you’ll be taking up these issues with our service provider.
Nick: How did you guess? laughter
Cheryl: Thank you. And feel free to quote my tone when you do.
Nick: Yes, I have... a number of expletives come to mind at this moment, but I shall see...
Cheryl: Very good. Well, feel free to quote them, because we are not amused, are we ALAC?
Thank you very much. I do apologize for the duration of the call, but we have actually done an enormous amount of work tonight, and I thank you all for the participation. See you online.
Alan: Bye-bye. Thank you.
Sebastien: Bye bye.
Hong: Thank you, Cheryl.
Veronica: Bye bye.
24 – 3.07.48
end of audio